Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur is also perused. 3. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer in Vidyapatinagar Block, was put under suspension by the District Magistrate, Samastipur on a complaint made by the Block Development Officer-curn-Circle Officer, Vidyapatinagar under his letter no. 70 dated 26.1.2003 that on the date of the flag hoisting the petitioner purposefully remained absent. The petitioner submitted his show cause, He submits before the Court that the District Magistrate was not the appointing authority, therefore, he could not put the petitioner under suspension and secondly in view of the letter (Annexure-4) issued by the Executive Engineer because of the compelling reasons, he could not go to Vidyapatinagar and participate in the flag hoisting. 4. On 4.8.2003 this Court required the District Magistrate to file his personal counter clearly showing his authority to suspend the petitioner, He was also required to inform this Court that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the District Magistrate himself was not the appointing/ disciplinary authority of the petitioner then why the full salary of the period of suspension be not recovered from the District Magistrate and ordered to be paid to the present petitioner. 5. In paragraph 4 of the counter, the District Magistrate has submitted that on 31.7.2003 the suspension order has been revoked and as such the petitioners grievance has been redressed. It is submitted in paragraph 5 of the counter that on the report from the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Vidyapatinagar, the District Magistrate on receipt of the complaint found present to be a serious matter and put the petitioner under suspension. In whole of the counter it is not said that what was the District Magistrates authority to put the petitioner under suspension. On a query made by this Court, learned counsel for the State was forced to concede that the District Magistrate had no authority to place the petitioner under suspension as he himself was not the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority. 6. In view of the above referred fact, the order of suspension dated 30.1.2003 though for present stands revoked must be held to be patently without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. 6. In view of the above referred fact, the order of suspension dated 30.1.2003 though for present stands revoked must be held to be patently without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. This Court must also observe that a District Magistrate must know the periphery of his jurisdiction and he cannot act like a dictator in his own District. A District Magistrate under the law is entitled to pass certain orders but by transgressing his jurisdiction he cannot pass any orders just to satisfy his whims or arbitrariness. 7. By this act the District Magistrate has caused loss to the public work and has also caused loss to the public exchequer. This Court must say that when a person is to be put under suspension then particular person only receives the suspension allowance and is not required to work, even the suspension allowance is to be paid by the exchequer. In the present matter the action of the District Magistrate cannot be approved. By his action he has caused loss to the State Govt. 8. Despite clear directions of this Court contained in the order dated 4.8.2003 he has not given any explanation that for a particular reason the salary of the petitioner for the period under suspension be not recovered from him. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Collector/District Magistrate, Samastipur must be held liable to compensate the State Govt. for the salary to which the petitioner is entitled. The State Govt. shall pay full salary to the petitioner for the period between 30.1.2003 till 31.7.2003. It is also made clear that this suspension would not have any adverse affect on the service career of the petitioner. The State Govt. shall recover this amount from the District Magistrate, Samastipur and shall report its compliance to this Court within one month from today. 10. It is also made clear that if this order is not followed in its true spirit then the concerned State authority and the District Magistrate shall be exposing themselves to serious risk. 11. The petition is disposed of but, however, be listed under the heading to be mentioned on 22.9.2003. 12. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State.